|
Phyzzle posted:In academia, they attempted to prove it with an experiment involving equally qualified male and female applicants in STEM fields: I'd be careful with what that study actually shows. The researchers didn't evaluate actual hiring practices, they set up a hypothetical situation with made-up applicants. STEM fields still have a massive underrepresentation of women, and they are constantly getting poo poo for it. It's not a stretch to assume that when the institutes were asked to participate in a study on hiring preferences, they knew what this was about and accordingly overcorrected. (The value of 4:1 female over male applicants given as the extreme in the study seems like a probable case of overcorrection to me.) There's also the problem of course that the amount of female applicants to STEM tenure track positions is so comparatively small due to how the undergrad and grad studies are structured that exclusively looking at (fictional) tenure track applicants is tenuous anyway.
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Yes OP, after statistical controls are performed the gap disappears. Problem is there are lots of poorly designed studies that fail to do this which is why you still hear about it. quote:Oh and women are on average much worse at salary negotiations
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Fansy posted:Short answer: it's complicated. lol "It's complicated, here's a couple thousand words that boil down to (a) the gendergap exists and (b) it's because of discrimination, but because nobody is willing to come out and say they hate women, we'll talk to some Harvard economists for 45 minutes."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You've got the cause and effect backwards here I think, historically a job has been considered "for women" because of it's low value, not the other way around. That's not true (or at least not in all cases): when the industrial revolution came around and factory work became the standard way of earning a living, female factory workers were typically paid just under half of what the male factory workers were paid. These were new jobs that didn't exist before the creation of manufactories, and both male and female workers were employed in the same jobs, especially in the creation of wool and cotton goods, and shoe-making, as well as packaging in several industries. In all of those cases the average wage for a female worker is often less than half of that for male workers.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said When manufacturing created new jobs, especially in the textile industry, men and women both worked those jobs. Women were paid less. Weavers are one of the few factory jobs that was almost exclusively done by women, most other factory jobs, even in the textile industry, employed male and female workers. Even more important for your argument is that non-farm menial labor and daylabor was almost exclusively a male job, and it payed even less than the textile work. If low value was the reason a job was considered "for women", (a) non-farm labor would have been considered a female occupation and (b) new jobs that were done by men and women would presumably have paid out equally. Instead women just get paid less, whatever their job, and regardless of whether the job is seen as stereotypically male or female.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:Do you really think that in a country of 300 million people, there is not enough employers who wouldn't have the intelligence to exploit that particular gap if it was there? The fact that one group of workers is cheaper than another is in many industries not a gap waiting to be exploited but rather understood as a sign that the cheaper group of workers is worse. It's at least in part a self-fulfilling prophecy: Women are probably not very good at this job, therefore we should pay them less. We pay them less, therefore they're probably worth less. They're worth less, therefore they're probably not very good at this job. Evidence for any step of the argument comes in the form of the observation "most people working this job are male, therefore males are probably better suited to this job." It's not that these people are mouth-breathing idiots, the argument isn't even implausible on its face, it just happens to be wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
McDowell posted:Your manager could be in your poo poo - other employees might freak out - you get odd / fewer shifts, etc. pretty sure that post was a boring throwaway comment about your use of the word "literally"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 01:02
|
|